DESIDERIO, ALL SURNAMED MUÑEZ, VS. SPOUSES LEON V.

Ruling

Accordingly, "an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years counted from the date when an adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property" x x x moreover, "the rule in this jurisdiction is that an action to enforce an implied trust may be barred not only by prescription but also by laches in which case repudiation is not even required." On 26 February 1998 the Court of Appeals, as stated earlier, affirmed the Decision of the trial court. [7] Petitioners now seek a review of the appellate court's Decision contending that: (a) the litigated property was originally registered under the Torrens system and, as such, it cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession; (b) prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but also against his hereditary successors because the latter merely step into the shoes of the former by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessors in interest; (c) the right to recover possession of a registered property is equally imprescriptible; (d) laches too may not be considered a valid defense for claiming ownership of land registered under the Torrens system. When prescription would not lie, neither would laches be available; (e) respondents are not in possession of the land in the concept of owners, but are merely holding the same in trust for petitioners; (f) neither could possession of respondents be characterized as adverse possession in good faith; (g) Francisco Ingjug could not have been a party to the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Confirmation of Sale in 1967 because he died on 17 August 1963; and, (h) Eufemio Ingjug, one of the signatories to the Deed of Sale, was not the son of Mamerto Ingjug but only a son-in-law, he being a Tiro and husband of Ramona Ingjug-Tiro. [8] The pivotal issue is whether petitioners' right to institute a complaint for partition and reconveyance is effectively barred by prescription and laches . We grant the petition. It should be noted that the trial court dismissed the complaint based on prescription and laches alone without taking into consideration the other issues raised by petitioners concerning the validity of the contract and its bearing on the matter of prescription. The Court of Appeals likewise skirted the other issues and sustained the trial court's theory that herein petitioners' cause of action - which is essentially one for reconveyance based upon a constructive or implied trust resulting from fraud - had been effectively lost through prescription and laches . A cursory reading of the complaint, however, reveals that the action filed by petitioners was for partition, recovery of ownership and possession, declaration of nullity of a deed of sale of unregistered land and extrajudicial settlement and confirmation of sale . Petitioners' causes of action are premised on their claim that: (a) the Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land is void and of no effe